From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm Sure, and we do those things. Even there though, I think one needs to be careful about what one means by moral as an adjective. Humans think in terms of morals. Things we think need not be factual. That we think that way may be factual. Humans tend to believe in God. I bring this up because VA is an atheist. That humans this this way doesn't mean that God exist. Nor that morals exist in the traditional humans should or ought to way. They exist in that humans tend to have them.
Yes, VA posits that "God exists" is a fact within the religion FSK, but the religion FSK itself is based on principles like faith and tradition, so if we were to take this claim and put it inside of a science FSK, it would be invalid.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm The problem with this interpretation of his position is that he sees, for example, mirror neurons which produce empathy. He uses this to support that ought-not-to-killness is a moral fact. On the other hand he does not talk about the parts of the brain that cause aggression and call oughtness-not-to-kill as something we should enhance. Neither one of these parts of the brain is a moral fact, they are facts about brains. Adn these facts affect, yes, how we think about morals. We can certainly come up with facts about morals, but not moral facts.

IOW he cherry picks parts of the brain to support a morality (one, at this level of abstraction, I would support also.) But he supports is as showing an objective morality. It doesn't really matter if he is thinking in terms of norms - which I think it is obvious he is, since he repeatedly talks about the oughtness of not killing - but what is talking about is not objective morality. It is objective tendencies to view morality in us. Amongst other tendencies. Which ones he chooses to focus on reflect his morality, not moral facts.
From what I understand VA does not disagree that humans have aggressive impulses (i.e. fight or flight etc.). The argument is that there's a difference between a healthy brain anatomy and an unhealthy one. As such, it's possible to identify when a brain is not functioning properly in the same sense as we can, for example, identify a human eye that doesn't work properly. This of course means that we can also, theoretically, correct it. But it does not mean that we should correct it -- it's a medical decision that's up to the person suffering from the ailment.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm I'm really not confused by this. I do have a background in science, part of it, but more that when he uses philosophical terms, he uses them in ways that are not supported by his arguments. When he uses scientific terms, he also is often confused. English is not his first language - and while he is extremely good in English, I think he often misses nuances. How much that is a problem, I don't know.

IOW above you are assuming that people interested in philosophy only see things in terms of deontology (an accusation he ofte makes), I think you are incorrect.

If he titled his thread, From facts about Brains to Facts about Human morals, that would be a different can of beans. I think that's a perfectly fine way to come up with ideas about where our morals come from or

I think he often, but not always falls under Virtue ethics which
I agree, terminology seems to me like the number one problem. "Human morality FSK" might be a good start to clarify it. I think "morality" alone might be too unspecific.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm IOW he wants to enhance the character of people, via technology, so that the parts of the brain that enhance empathy are stronger. Then the behavior will tend to sort itself out without rules to 'be nice to people'. This has been pointed out to him long ago.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. His point seems to be that we can derive facts from various fields of knowledge and review them through the lens of the (human) morality FSK to determine if they are "moral" in nature, i.e. whether they pertain to human well-being. These "moral facts" can in turn be referenced in other fields, such as policy-making, law or medicine.

This doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, because this is pretty much exactly what we're already doing. For example, social programs are often designed with the intention of minimizing certain behaviors and maximizing others. We could therefore call it "behavior FSK", but this seems too neutral, because the reality is that we do know (to an extent) which behaviors we want to promote and which we want to inhibit.

So maybe we should think of a better terminology... quickly, while VA isn't here yet -- then we can say it was objectively determined by the philosophy FSK 😂

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm And, of course, this is a valid option for looking at ethics and morals. But he seems to think he can just assume that oughtness to not kill is the one we should enhance. That his version of moral realism had demonstrated this because there are mirror neurons. But it hasn't.
As I pointed out above, I don't think that's completely correct -- according to VA, humans basically have an "organ" (not literally, of course) that regulates their impulses to kill. This, he would argue, is simply a statement of fact -- so it has no implications regarding any "oughts" (which is why the term "oughtness-not-to-kill" is so confusing). This "organ" simply exists (again, not literally, but still physically). So the idea is that if a person can be diagnosed as having some kind of a deficiency pertaining to this "organ", we should be able to provide them with an appropriate treatment.

Now this appears to fit in a "medicine FSK" and so the question is where the "morality FSK" would come into play, exactly. I still think it might be possible to rationalize it away completely by assigning things to already existing, established FSK's. Not sure.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm It might be one we, via consensus or democratic means, agree we want. But that does not make it a moral fact. No more than enhancing the aggressive parts of the brain to create less empathetic (or more noble, Viking warrior, or corporate leader) types is a moral fact.
From what I understand VA argues that the exact scope of morality must be defined, in the same sense as we define the scope of any other field of knowledge. It seems to me that he hasn't really settled on a definitive definition, so yeah. The provisional one seems to go something like this: "morality is the field of study involving social practices, biological features and behavioral tendencies pertaining to the well-being and flourishing of humanity"

So, for example, if a society was under attack by some kind of brutal foreign invader, then it would make perfect sense to me that the morality FSK, in this context, would be used to inform us how to be less empathetic (towards the aggressors).
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:10 pm Yes, VA posits that "God exists" is a fact within the religion FSK, but the religion FSK itself is based on principles like faith and tradition, so if we were to take this claim and put it inside of a science FSK, it would be invalid.
So, if we put we should strive to enhance the oughtness not to kill in the science FSK, would it be invalid?
I also don't see why a monotheism becomes a fact in the religion FSK. Why not animism or polytheism?

From what I understand VA does not disagree that humans have aggressive impulses (i.e. fight or flight etc.).
I agree. He recognizes this. But then on what grounds does he choose to enhance the parts of the brain he thinks we should enhance and not the aggressive ones?
The argument is that there's a difference between a healthy brain anatomy and an unhealthy one. As such, it's possible to identify when a brain is not functioning properly in the same sense as we can, for example, identify a human eye that doesn't work properly. This of course means that we can also, theoretically, correct it. But it does not mean that we should correct it -- it's a medical decision that's up to the person suffering from the ailment.
That's wild speculation. He sees current humanity as needing very large brain changes. He has no grounds for deciding that most of humanity has a brain ailment.
I agree, terminology seems to me like the number one problem. "Human morality FSK" might be a good start to clarify it. I think "morality" alone might be too unspecific.
And then above you are defending his position as seeing aggression, say, or a lack of empathy (what degree?) as a health problem.

Then it is NOT a moral FSK determining moral facts. But a health FSK determining facts about people's health. We do have some of this kind of thinking out there. Narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths can be seen as having disorders (as being unhealthy) for their lack of empathy (amongst other things) but VA pathologizes most modern people. I don't see any support for this. And then, well, my main point is, it is not a moral FSK, if doctors and MRI techinicians are deciding person X has a health problem due to atrophied mirror neurons or some more complex criteria. It would be a health FSK.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:20 pm IOW he wants to enhance the character of people, via technology, so that the parts of the brain that enhance empathy are stronger. Then the behavior will tend to sort itself out without rules to 'be nice to people'. This has been pointed out to him long ago.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. His point seems to be that we can derive facts from various fields of knowledge and review them through the lens of the (human) morality FSK to determine if they are "moral" in nature, i.e. whether they pertain to human well-being.
Human well being and human morals would be two different FSK. And there is no way to reconcile the values in that evaluation. How do we evaluate policies that lead the great characters (say of the types Rome and some periods of Greece would like, values that focus on virtue, strength, etc. and their potential achievements or values that focus on the greatest health for the greatest number. I see VA rooting for the latter, which is peachy, but you cannot determine by looking at brains what the goals should be. The moment you shift to the moral FSK no one can claim that their priorities are correct. Health can be evaluated as some sum total or through great figures. There would be other value systems also that could be applied to the health FSK results.

This is not to say that the science is worthless is making policy decisions or thinking about what we want. But it cannot choose between value systems. A value judgment will do that. More information when we make choices can absolutely be helpful.
These "moral facts" can in turn be referenced in other fields, such as policy-making, law or medicine.
This doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, because this is pretty much exactly what we're already doing.
Sure, but it's not generating moral facts.
For example, social programs are often designed with the intention of minimizing certain behaviors and maximizing others. We could therefore call it "behavior FSK",
I've questioned him again and again with suggestions like behavior or interpersonal realtions. If one is a fan of Occam's Razor or parsimony, there is nothing left out using those categories.
but this seems too neutral, because the reality is that we do know (to an extent) which behaviors we want to promote and which we want to inhibit.
I would say that we have some common ground and also a great variety of differences.
So maybe we should think of a better terminology... quickly, while VA isn't here yet -- then we can say it was objectively determined by the philosophy FSK 😂
LOL
We need a terminology choosing FSK.

As I pointed out above, I don't think that's completely correct -- according to VA, humans basically have an "organ" (not literally, of course) that regulates their impulses to kill. This, he would argue, is simply a statement of fact -- so it has no implications regarding any "oughts" (which is why the term "oughtness-not-to-kill" is so confusing).
Which is why I think it is completely correct. Yes, that's certainly a terminology problem at the very least. But since that phrase has been criticised by a number of people for a long time in a wide variety of ways, I don't see a good reason to treat it as merely a terminology problem.
This "organ" simply exists (again, not literally, but still physically). So the idea is that if a person can be diagnosed as having some kind of a deficiency pertaining to this "organ", we should be able to provide them with an appropriate treatment.
Again, this will always have value judgments in it. Komodo dragons do fine as sociopaths. And is what is healthy for humans, healthy for other species? Another reason I think this cannot be a moral FSK. He's taking what's good for our health - using your, I think, very generous interpretation - to indicate moral facts. But what's good for our health, so far, has been pretty horrible for other life forms. Even empathy for each other, which has helped us achieve what we have through collabortion and tighter social bonds. Perhaps it just helps us destroy other things because it helps us thrive.

And this type of thinking could easily have been used against gays and was.

From what I understand VA argues that the exact scope of morality must be defined, in the same sense as we define the scope of any other field of knowledge. It seems to me that he hasn't really settled on a definitive definition, so yeah. The provisional one seems to go something like this: "morality is the field of study involving social practices, biological features and behavioral tendencies pertaining to the well-being and flourishing of humanity"
It'd be very easy to drop the word morality out of there, precisely as biologists could describe social and behavioral patterns in animals by their benefits for the species.

.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by reasonvemotion »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If you were to do extensive research to know your own nature, i.e. within the brain's 100 billion neurons with up to 10,000 connectors plus the genes within your DNA, then you will likely be more optimistic than your current state of pessimism.
I think you are presenting the notion that humans have a fixed nature and thanks to nanotechnologies (a controlling influence on brain activity) and artificial intelligence, human nature could be enhanced.  All this will affect what it means to be human and to exercise free will.

This is dangerous territory, which could deny a person's own capacity for change and diversity. 

I disagree strongly with your "petri dish philosophy".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:54 am Perhaps it'll help to formulate it in a different "style": as far as I understand, VA believes that what is "moral" should be derived on the basis of a "morality FSK", the exact details of which are to be determined through further research and advancements in the study of morality. This "morality FSK" can include various sources (meaning other FSK's), such as biology, neurology, sociology, psychology, etc.
I don't think I have deviated from what is generally accepted as 'Morality'. Note the general definition of what is morality;
  • Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1]
    Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
    Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
I don't agree with 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in relation to morality. As you can see the definition above is too loose and from there morality is "anything goes" thus gets too subjective. This is why there is no significant progress in 'morality' as what is properly represented by human nature.

Principle: All facts, truth and knowledge are conditioned upon its specific FSK.

To facilitate progress we need to approach Morality objectively.
To do so, in principle, we need to establish a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

Note, once Science was 'anything goes' within Philosophy, i.e. Natural Philosophy. Then what facilitated scientific progress was the establishment of the Scientific Method [FSK] which is within the wider Scientific Framework and System. That is where the Scientific FSK enables scientific facts, truths and knowledge to emerge from its system.

What I am proposing is the same for what emerged for Science to be more objective, i.e. the establishment of a Moral FSK that enable objective moral facts.
Objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity.
There are no absolutely independent facts-in-themselves, but facts emerged are always entangled with the subject[s].

For the Moral FSK to be sound, effective, credible, reliable, we must establish its Constitution.
One of the critical element of the Moral FSK is to define 'what is morality' more precisely and specifically than the traditional very loose definition.
I have already defined Morality as "avoiding evil to promote good." This definition does not deviate from the generally accepted definition of what is morality, but rather make it more precise thus more manageable to be productive & effective.
What is generally recognized as 'morality' is an intuitive sense of what is the moral sense pulsating within one's human nature.

So, I have confined morality to human nature [no God's nor platonic ideals] which is completely covered within the human self, i.e. the physical, the mental, the biology, psychological and everything that is human.
The traditional morality coverage is done on a black-box approach with human nature.

Now I am proposing we must studied morality from inside the 'black-box' via the neurosciences, genetics, genomics, etc.
For anyone to resist and reject this approach to morality is not an intelligent move. This is the typical 'resistance to change' impulse due the psychological natural fears arising from ignorance.

For example, we can conduct studies to determine what various groups of people consider to be moral based on behavior and existing laws and norms and such. These would become "moral facts" from the sociology FSK. We can examine the behavior of people (and animals) to determine facts about our moral intuitions (empathy, reciprocity, etc.). We can look at biology and the general tendencies of living organisms, which can be universally observed to struggle towards surviving and reproducing (what VA calls "will-to-live"). This would become a moral fact from the biology FSK. Then we can look at neural mechanisms which function to promote our abilities to coexist and grow as a species (i.e. mirror neurons). These would become facts from the neurology FSK, etc.
I had stated the Moral FSK will have inputs from whatever relevant FSKs, i.e. neurology, biology, genetics, social, X-FSKs and so on, to enable the emergence of its own objective moral facts.
So it's not so much about determining moral rules and norms and such. Rather, it's about discovering factors that contribute to the functionality and progress of humans and humanity as a whole.
There would be no moral norms, rules and laws imposed from external authorities, e.g. political, theistic, social, conventional, gangs, etc.

But there will be objective moral facts as moral norms, rules and laws within one's own human nature that one will spontaneously align with naturally.

Note Kant's;
  • “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
    I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision;
    I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence.
    Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
That is why Kant's Morality is not deontological [only appear to be] but is allowing the moral potential within oneself to unfolds itself naturally without any coercion from external parties.
In other words, it's not something that would fit inside of any of the existing prescriptive approaches to morality, but rather it's more like a scientist (perhaps without a philosophical background) would approach it. For this reason it's very confusing for philosophically-minded people.
Point is the existing ideas of morality are too crude in corresponding to the natural state of the current phase of the evolution of humans.
At present the majority of humans are being-more-animal than being-more-human.

"For this reason it's very confusing for philosophically-minded people."
I have highlighted elsewhere, the majority of those doing 'philosophy' is not doing philosophy proper.
Many are stuck with the bastardized philosophy of the academia, while others are stuck with their own dogmatic ideologies, e.g. as with Peter Holmes and gang in here.

That I am nudging more of scientific facts into morality [as defined] is actually a refined philosophical move that will facilitate moral progress.
The establishment of the scientific FSK was and is a continuing philosophical act; so the same will be for the establishment of a moral-FSK-proper.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

reasonvemotion wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:30 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If you were to do extensive research to know your own nature, i.e. within the brain's 100 billion neurons with up to 10,000 connectors plus the genes within your DNA, then you will likely be more optimistic than your current state of pessimism.
I think you are presenting the notion that humans have a fixed nature and thanks to nanotechnologies (a controlling influence on brain activity) and artificial intelligence, human nature could be enhanced.  All this will affect what it means to be human and to exercise free will.

This is dangerous territory, which could deny a person's own capacity for change and diversity. 

I disagree strongly with your "petri dish philosophy".
"Know Thyself".
Until you have understood your own 'human nature' [generic], your opinion above is short-sighted, narrow and shallow.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:08 am Put your thinking hat on, and try really, really hard to understand this. To repeat:

Finding out why humans behave as they do can tell us nothing about the way humans ought to behave.
You are trying to teach me kindergarten stuff of 'oughts'.

Your understanding and views of 'ought' is that which is imposed upon individuals by external parties, .e.g. via legal laws, rules, customs, group-think, etc.
In addition you are referring to 'oughts' claim by certain realists which exist independent of the human self, e.g. from God or are platonic ideals or universal that exists on their own out there.
These sort of 'oughts' has nothing to do with my 'natural oughts'.

What I present are natural oughts that exist within the human self and features of human nature.
There is a natural 'ought-ness' to breathe within every human as their human nature; this ought-ness is represented by its physical referent. This is an objective fact of human nature via the biology FSK.

Similarly, there are ought-ness or ought-not-ness related to morality within human nature. These are biological facts; when adopted via the moral FSK, in principle, these 'oughts' are objective moral facts.

Principle: ALL facts, truth, knowledge and conditioned within its specific FSK.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by reasonvemotion »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"Know Thyself".
Until you have understood your own 'human nature' [generic], your opinion above is short-sighted, narrow and shallow.
and you sir, professing to be wise you become a fool.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:10 pm From what I understand VA argues that the exact scope of morality must be defined, in the same sense as we define the scope of any other field of knowledge. It seems to me that he hasn't really settled on a definitive definition, so yeah. The provisional one seems to go something like this: "morality is the field of study involving social practices, biological features and behavioral tendencies pertaining to the well-being and flourishing of humanity"
I have defined what is morality in many of my posts to you and others.

Morality is 'avoiding evil to promote good' [the well-being and flourishing of humanity] encompassed within a credible moral FSK which adopt facts from whatever relevant FSKs, e.g. science, biology, sociology, logic, philosophy, etc.
So, for example, if a society was under attack by some kind of brutal foreign invader, then it would make perfect sense to me that the morality FSK, in this context, would be used to inform us how to be less empathetic (towards the aggressors).
You are right.
Since morality is defined as 'avoiding evil to promote good [well being & flourishing], we will have to deal with whatever is 'evil' from the brutal foreign invaders. In this case, the mirror neurons that trigger empathy will naturally, spontaneously and efficiently be suppressed.

I have also confined morality [moral FSK] to the human species only with extension to other species where they have a positive impact, necessary or are neutral to the the well-being and flourishing of humanity.
If there are brutal foreign invaders, then each moral agent will naturally respond and reacts spontaneously, accordingly and optimally to the principles of their inherent moral functions.

This is like what ants do, i.e. responding naturally and spontaneously without opinions, beliefs, judgments nor deliberations.
Humans with highly developed moral competence [in the future, not now] will react in that natural way but it will be a more refined humanly holistic way with self-consciousness and wisdom.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

reasonvemotion wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:07 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"Know Thyself".
Until you have understood your own 'human nature' [generic], your opinion above is short-sighted, narrow and shallow.
and you sir, professing to be wise you become a fool.
You are merely blabbering. It is so easy for me to insist you are an @#$$@!#$@ without justifications.

It will be rational and wiser of you if you provide valid and sound arguments as counters to my views.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:17 am I have already defined Morality as "avoiding evil to promote good."
This sounds like the central justification for a morality FSK.

Can you explain in more detail how you would define "evil" and "good" objectively?

Normally, these are considered to be subjective terms, in that they are relative to the beholder. Would you say that they can be defined independently from the viewpoint of a particular subject?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by bahman »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:17 am I have already defined Morality as "avoiding evil to promote good."
This sounds like the central justification for a morality FSK.

Can you explain in more detail how you would define "evil" and "good" objectively?

Normally, these are considered to be subjective terms, in that they are relative to the beholder. Would you say that they can be defined independently from the viewpoint of a particular subject?
Yes, you are right.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:33 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:17 am I have already defined Morality as "avoiding evil to promote good."
This sounds like the central justification for a morality FSK.

Can you explain in more detail how you would define "evil" and "good" objectively?

Normally, these are considered to be subjective terms, in that they are relative to the beholder. Would you say that they can be defined independently from the viewpoint of a particular subject?
I have done that before, anyway

In the moral perspective, what is good is absence of evil.
Thus 'morality' as the avoidance of evil will promote its related goods within overall good.
What is evil is net-negativity to the well-being, welfare and flourishing of humanity.[1]

To eliminate elements of personal subjectivity, we [intersubjective consensus on what is human nature] will have to prepare an exhaustive list of what is evil, i.e. evil acts.
Any normal human would regard 'genocide to extent of exterminating the human species' as the worst degree of evil. In this case, we can rate this evil at 99.9/100 as defined in 1 above.

Islam has the a 99.9/100 potential of evilness because evil laden Muslims will have no hesitation -without regard for any deterrent- [as commanded by God] to exterminate the human species with WMDs [when they get access to cheap easily accessible WMDs], since regardless they would be in a paradise with eternal life surrounded by 72 virgins.

I had mentioned we can refer to the political criminal code around the world to estimate the degrees of moral evil relative to the crime [evil act]. And the degrees of evil can be represented on a Normal Curve from one end to the other.

We can then apply pareto's 80/20, i.e. the focus on the 20% worst of evil will eliminate 80% of evilness within humanity.

In all the above moral considerations, there is no enforcements of oughts [via laws and rules] on the individual[s].

I wonder you will register the above points, since I have mentioned them many times.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Iwannaplato »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:10 pm As I pointed out above, I don't think that's completely correct -- according to VA, humans basically have an "organ" (not literally, of course) that regulates their impulses to kill. This, he would argue, is simply a statement of fact -- so it has no implications regarding any "oughts" (which is why the term "oughtness-not-to-kill" is so confusing). This "organ" simply exists (again, not literally, but still physically). So the idea is that if a person can be diagnosed as having some kind of a deficiency pertaining to this "organ", we should be able to provide them with an appropriate treatment.

Now this appears to fit in a "medicine FSK" and so the question is where the "morality FSK" would come into play, exactly. I still think it might be possible to rationalize it away completely by assigning things to already existing, established FSK's. Not sure.
I think it's good exploration to view his views charitably. But in his last post directed at you, it seems to me common forms of normative morality are present even if in other contexts he denies they are...

Note that he uses the terms good and evil.
His view is anthropocentric, without justification.
He uses appeal to popularity in determining moral facts. (he uses the fancy intersubjectivity to conflate universality with objectivity - universality amongst human viewpoints, that is)
He uses the phrase 'evil laden Muslims',
I really can't consider his position as really being about healthy vs. unhealthy.
Yes, his practical plan does not use traditional deontological norms.
In all the above moral considerations, there is no enforcements of oughts [via laws and rules] on the individual[s].
But that is clearly tactical not philosophical. He wants to eliminate what he considers evil acts. His tactics are character/virtue based but his conception of evil includes good old deontological judgments. And if you view his post here through his being a former Christian, what we have in terms of morals is pretty familiar monotheist deontological judgment patterns (even Crusader type versions) but his remedies are not focused on creating rules of behavior.
So his conception of morals is pretty standard Abrahamist, but he's modern in his approach to dealing with the problems. Modern technocrat, transhumanist.
Which has it's own set of problems as far as I am concerned.

Instead of parenting, teaching, sermon training and punishment, let's modify the brains of people directly.
I have done that before, anyway

In the moral perspective, what is good is absence of evil.
Thus 'morality' as the avoidance of evil will promote its related goods within overall good.
What is evil is net-negativity to the well-being, welfare and flourishing of humanity.[1]

To eliminate elements of personal subjectivity, we [intersubjective consensus on what is human nature] will have to prepare an exhaustive list of what is evil, i.e. evil acts.
Any normal human would regard 'genocide to extent of exterminating the human species' as the worst degree of evil. In this case, we can rate this evil at 99.9/100 as defined in 1 above.

Islam has the a 99.9/100 potential of evilness because evil laden Muslims will have no hesitation -without regard for any deterrent- [as commanded by God] to exterminate the human species with WMDs [when they get access to cheap easily accessible WMDs], since regardless they would be in a paradise with eternal life surrounded by 72 virgins.

I had mentioned we can refer to the political criminal code around the world to estimate the degrees of moral evil relative to the crime [evil act]. And the degrees of evil can be represented on a Normal Curve from one end to the other.

We can then apply pareto's 80/20, i.e. the focus on the 20% worst of evil will eliminate 80% of evilness within humanity.

In all the above moral considerations, there is no enforcements of oughts [via laws and rules] on the individual[s].

I wonder you will register the above points, since I have mentioned them many times.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:33 am In all the above moral considerations, there is no enforcements of oughts [via laws and rules] on the individual[s].
This right here -- this is the reason why your position makes perfect sense to you and no sense to everyone else 😅

Yes, you have mentioned this a few times already, but I didn't fully realize the implications before.

It's a bit of a trick, even though technically it's certainly "correct". To clarify, what you're basically saying is this:

It doesn't really matter how we define good and evil. What matters is that we don't physically force our ideas of good and evil on others.

The enforcement is actually what's "evil".

Let me explain: As most of us here understand, people who perform great acts of evil often don't think of themselves as evil, at all. Quite the opposite: in their mind, they're heroes: heroes sometimes have to make difficult choices. Sometimes they have to sacrifice a few for the benefit of many. Sometimes harsh and decisive actions can prevent more suffering that would occur otherwise. These are some examples of how evil acts can be justified -- it's not particularly difficult to imagine how such acts can be committed despite the best of intentions. This is why people who have examined moral questions deeply tend to be extremely suspicious about terminology of good and evil -- because more often than not, evil presents itself as the greatest good.

But all violent acts are fundamentally the enforcement of an idea upon someone else. The victim plays a vital role in the fantasy of the murderer; they need the victim to realize their vile idea, and as such they force it upon them. Just imagine a world in which a murderer couldn't force their idea upon someone else:

"Hey, I had this really amazing idea where I brutally murder you! How cool would that be!? Wanna try it?"

"Uh... how about no?"

"Okay, nevermind then..."

"So... you want to talk about why you have murder fantasies?"

In a world where no idea gets forced upon others, no evil can be possible. So yes, that would be splendid. The only problem is that we don't live in such a world (certainly not yet).

As such it's a bit of a cop-out, because the fact of the matter is, we do have to make tough decisions. And to say that we'll simply not use morality to inform those tough decisions means that we'd rather make immoral decisions than to risk using morality for an "evil" purpose -- which, I would argue, is an immoral proposition in its own right.

As such, we do have to use morality (=moral FSK) to inform those decisions, and therefore we can't claim that it won't be enforced.

And this, in my opinion, is the Achilles heel of your proposition -- it doesn't mean that your approach is bad, just that it's a considerably greater challenge than you present it as.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: From Moral Sense Theory to Moral Facts

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:43 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:33 am In all the above moral considerations, there is no enforcements of oughts [via laws and rules] on the individual[s].
This right here -- this is the reason why your position makes perfect sense to you and no sense to everyone else 😅

Yes, you have mentioned this a few times already, but I didn't fully realize the implications before.

It's a bit of a trick, even though technically it's certainly "correct". To clarify, what you're basically saying is this:

It doesn't really matter how we define good and evil. What matters is that we don't physically force our ideas of good and evil on others.

The enforcement is actually what's "evil".
You missed my point.

I never stated nor even implied,
The enforcement is actually what's "evil".

As I had stated, we have have an exhausted list of what is evil.

Here again;
To eliminate elements of personal subjectivity, we [intersubjective consensus on what is human nature] will have to prepare an exhaustive list of what is evil, i.e. evil acts.
Any normal human would regard 'genocide to extent of exterminating the human species' as the worst degree of evil. In this case, we can rate this evil at 99.9/100 as defined in 1 above.


"Enforcement" of oughts is not evil, e.g. criminal laws in preventing evil cannot be evil.

Let me explain: As most of us here understand, people who perform great acts of evil often don't think of themselves as evil, at all. Quite the opposite: in their mind, they're heroes: heroes sometimes have to make difficult choices. Sometimes they have to sacrifice a few for the benefit of many. Sometimes harsh and decisive actions can prevent more suffering that would occur otherwise. These are some examples of how evil acts can be justified -- it's not particularly difficult to imagine how such acts can be committed despite the best of intentions. This is why people who have examined moral questions deeply tend to be extremely suspicious about terminology of good and evil -- because more often than not, evil presents itself as the greatest good.
As stated we must have a taxonomy and exhaustive list of 'what are evil acts' without ambiguity.
But all violent acts are fundamentally the enforcement of an idea upon someone else. The victim plays a vital role in the fantasy of the murderer; they need the victim to realize their vile idea, and as such they force it upon them. Just imagine a world in which a murderer couldn't force their idea upon someone else:

"Hey, I had this really amazing idea where I brutally murder you! How cool would that be!? Wanna try it?"

"Uh... how about no?"

"Okay, nevermind then..."

"So... you want to talk about why you have murder fantasies?"
Don't get your point.
Evil is evil-as-defined.
What is critical is whether the evil act is committed or not. The enforcement is secondary because it is very common for people to commit evil acts spontaneously or premeditating murders on their own.
In a world where no idea gets forced upon others, no evil can be possible. So yes, that would be splendid. The only problem is that we don't live in such a world (certainly not yet).
You missed my point.
It is impossible for a human world where there is absolutely no evil [utopia].
The potential for Evil [as defined] is inherent in all humans and are modulated by neural inhibitors which can weaken.
As I had stated, the most moral person can be turned into a killer via brainwashing techniques.

What I proposed is to reduce not eliminate evil [as defined] from our current state of evil progressively to as low as optimally possible with urgency.
At present > a million [maybe millions?] of humans are killed by humans annually via homicides, wars, violence, etc. and the potential of genocides via WMDs is a real possibility.
The urgency is we must expedite the reduction of such evil acts as soon and possible and effectively.

We cannot do it expeditiously and effective without an objective target, e.g. as I proposed the target is ZERO murder.
Of course to achieve ZERO murder is impossible given human nature, but we need such a fixed goal post to drive and generate efficiency.
If you don't set an ideal goal, then a million killed would be acceptable, since that is only 0.0125% over > 8 billion people plus opening the possibility of the extinction of the human species.

Now the point is the ZERO Murder target must have some factual objective basis.
This is justified by the physical 'ought-ness-not-to-kill-humans' within the brain in ALL as an objective moral fact.
Thus at least theoretical [inferred from the empirical] the ZERO Murder target is not an impossibility.
Since it an objective moral fact, there is a possibility we can move on with continual improvement and progress toward the impossible target via a credible moral FSK.
The 'ZERO target' whilst is impossible can effectively drive improvements towards it, thus real progress.
As such it's a bit of a cop-out, because the fact of the matter is, we do have to make tough decisions. And to say that we'll simply not use morality to inform those tough decisions means that we'd rather make immoral decisions than to risk using morality for an "evil" purpose -- which, I would argue, is an immoral proposition in its own right.

As such, we do have to use morality (=moral FSK) to inform those decisions, and therefore we can't claim that it won't be enforced.

And this, in my opinion, is the Achilles heel of your proposition -- it doesn't mean that your approach is bad, just that it's a considerably greater challenge than you present it as.
When we have an ideal moral target, that can also guide our moral judgment in tough moral decisions.
But making tough moral decisions is a secondary issue.

With an ideal target, we will strive to ensure the causes at sources are prevented such that we don't have [or minimal] to face tough moral decisions [in the future].

For example, in a Trolley Problem with a failure of brakes that end up with a decision of having to kill one or five,
the optimal solution would be to act with moral optimality based on one's present moral competence [kill 1 or 5 is OK ] and then what is critical is to ensure that is no possibility of brakes failures [root causes] in the future.

As in the case of the abortion issue, humanity must strive to ensure each individual[s] have the competence to modulate one's sexual lust [with greater pleasure] [in the future, not now] in cases of unplanned pregnancies instead of fucking like animals on impulse with no heed of future outcomes.
Abortion should be banned because humans are inherently fallible and nature is unpredictable but humanity must strive to reduce irresponsible and uncontrollable lusts.
Post Reply